I was watching the demonstration by Regen Traynor done with the IIG West today at 7pm EST, via UStream, and I noticed that Anita was in the audience. They mentioned her attendance at the beginning of the feed as well. I wonder why she was there?  Shouldn't she be on the oter coast, doing that whole school thing?

Anita may have been there from simple curiosity.  She sees herself as a skeptic, and to skeptics these tests are interesting.  She has a good working relationship with the IIG and, if she asked to to be part of the audience, they would have welcomed her back.  During the test, she didn't call attention to herself in any way.    She made a few brief comments regarding the test in the chat but  that was it.  

Like most of us, she's a different person offline.  When she is talking to people face-to-face, she's a sweet shy kid who is looking for approval.   I wish I could have been there to hear her interpretation of the test afterward, I am sure that her insight was valuable.

Yes, of course, she's also VFF and all that.  I get it.  But it's not fair to slam her for being at the IIG.  If any of us could have made it, we would have been there as well.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 21 Feb 2010 05:09 PM
Why is not fair to slam, bookitty? She has followed a pattern where she uses people to gain attention, then moves on when there's nothing left to gain. She did that with the several members of the JREF forums, myself included. She did it with the local skeptics group. And now she's doing the same thing with the IIG.

The truth is she wasted their time. She said in advance that she expected to fail. Afterwards, she refused to assign any meaning to the results. What she has done is ingratiate herself with them in yet another attempt to have someone else's credibility rub off on her.

If you can't see the pattern, then you need to step back and review the history again.

I do understand the pattern and I personally have reason to understand the antipathy.  (Although it might be up to the IIG to decide if they were being exploited or wasting their time.) 

But Anita's inability to admit that she failed has nothing to do with her behavioir at yesterday's IIG challenge.   While she was there, she did not call attention to herself, hog the chatroom, or in any way act like an attention whore.  She was merely an audience member and one of the quieter ones at that. 

This does not excuse her past behaviour and it does not negate anything she has said.  But, my god, you see her in the background of something unrelated, she does nothing and she's an attention whore?  How is this woman ever going to go forward with her life if even her mundane actions are pounced on and judged harshly? 

Posted By bookitty on 21 Feb 2010 03:59 PM

Anita may have been there from simple curiosity.  She sees herself as a skeptic, and to skeptics these tests are interesting. 

If she was simply curious, she could have more easily sat in front of her computer in NC and watched the live stream. Instead, she flew 3,000 miles with the sole intent that her presence would be noticed, and the IIG members would pat her on the head. That is attention whoring. She certainly didn't travel all that way to make a few brief remarks in the chat room that she could have made from home.

She has a good working relationship with the IIG and, if she asked to to be part of the audience, they would have welcomed her back. 

Of course they would have. The folks at the IIG are considerate people with a reputation as a professional organization to protect. But, the good working relationship is a result of their efforts, not Anita's. She pays lip service to their professionalism while, at the same time, she has accused several members of the IIG of 'believing' her, but being 'too afraid' to say so publicly. That's absurd and untrue. As well, she's attemtping to use their credibility to her own advantage, because she has none.

During the test, she didn't call attention to herself in any way. 

She was there on camera. Her presence was announced. For Anita, that was the attention fix she was seeking.

   She made a few brief comments regarding the test in the chat but  that was it.  

Comments she could have more easily made from NC.

Like most of us, she's a different person offline.  When she is talking to people face-to-face, she's a sweet shy kid who is looking for approval.  

To you. To other people, like Alexis, and the emeritus professor at UNCC, among others, who have also met her in person, she's a mentally unhinged woman who has done everything in her power to damage their careers and their reputations over things they did not do and did not say. To the folks such as the migraine group she approached, and the other people she has 'diagnosed', she's at best a nuisance, and at worst a threat. They don't need her nonsense, however sweet and shy she appears to be. If they have genuine health issues, they need real answers.

And she isn't a kid. She's almost 30 years old. Certainly old enough to take responsibility for her own behavior, which she refuses to do. The ingenue slash kid schtick is an image she likes to play to the hilt, but indulging her in that regard isn't any help to her. She should be encouraged to act like a grownup instead of being labeled a "kid".

I wish I could have been there to hear her interpretation of the test afterward, I am sure that her insight was valuable.

Why? She's incapable of being insightful about her own ridiculous, and often damaging, behavior, so her insight about another 'psychic' would be nothing but hypocritical. How is that valuable? And, if she were truly trying to be a skeptic, she would have critically examined her own claims first, which she continually refuses to do

Yes, of course, she's also VFF and all that.  I get it.  But it's not fair to slam her for being at the IIG.  If any of us could have made it, we would have been there as well.

 I don't think so. I doubt that very many would have, especially in the current economy, shelled out that kind of cash and taken the time to fly across country when the live stream and chat was available. Why would they? 

This does not excuse her past behaviour and it does not negate anything she has said.  But, my god, you see her in the background of something unrelated, she does nothing and she's an attention whore? 

What other reason did she have to be there? As I said, she could have more easily watched and contributed to the chat from home. But, she was no longer the 'star' of the IIG's paranormal challenge, and that got under her skin. To her, better some attention than none at all.

How is this woman ever going to go forward with her life if even her mundane actions are pounced on and judged harshly? 

Go forward with what life? She refuses to relinguish her delusions and fantasies. She's already damaged her future career prospects with her endless babbling on the Internet. As Unca Yimmy pointed out, she's repeatedly lied to and about people. She's repeatedly hassled and threatened people. She's repeatedly used people for her own selfish purposes. She absolutely refuses to acknowledge ANY wrongdoing on her part. She has no real life-she has only her narcissistic, delusional one, and I don't believe anyone wants to encourage her to move forward with that.

 She went 3,000 miles out of her way to be noticed and patted on the head by the IIG members for the simple purpose of achieving an attention fix - that isn't mundane.

The recent IIG audience appearance by Anita Ikonen struck me as utterly meaningless, laughable. It's one of those things that are just not right, it really shouldn't have happened.

It's embarrassing really. Like a physically grown up person, showing utterly unsuitable behaviour in public.

As I said before, I understand all of the anger.  Especially Unca Yimmy's.  He was a sort of left-hand champion for VFF, one who invested a lot of time into helping her frame her claim, let her into his personal life, and eventually was forced to cut her out.  Their relationship is incredibly antagonistic at this point and with good reason.  She has abused his trust and his friendship.    Other people on the JREF have reason to feel the same way and her actions at UNCC are deplorable.

And so there is a constant escalation of hostilities.  A line has been drawn, Anita on one side and the skeptics on another.  Neither is willing to budge.   Anita has dug in her heels and surrounded herself with a thick wall of woo.  The skeptics will settle for no less than a full mea culpa and retraction of everything she has ever said.

But how can Anita trust that any apology would be accepted? Everything she says or does is twisted into the blackest interpretation.  Even when she has backtracked off her more extreme claims, tried to leave them behind by ignoring them, the skeptics drag them out.   She has been backed into a coner, trapped and her claims are her only armor.   In order to justify her actions, she must to be able to say "See, I was right!"   

There is no safe place for her among the skeptics.  Which means there is no place to explore other options.  Given how everyone expects her to do just that, this climate of ill will seems counter-productive.

Of course, if this site is intended to punish VFF for her behavior, then I am way out of line.

If only she did what she said she would do:

"and if I fail the test I will be proud to announce that the claim of medical perceptions through extrasensory perception is falsified."

I have forgotten nothing.  Nor am I excusing Anita's behavior or refusing to acknowledge it.   I am not trying to protect her and I am not taking sides. 

As I said, the escalation of hostilities is counter-productive, for two reasons.

The first and  most important is that it makes this site seem vindictive.  I know too many people who could fall for VFF's "medical miracles."  Those people love a martyr.  The more you attack and the more vicious those attacks, the more they will see her as a saint.  It's stupid, yes.  One of the reasons that Stop Sylvia is effective is because it is very objective.   There is no emotional tone and so it is more difficult for a believer to question it from an emotional standpoint.  Even with that, it's very hard to get through to them.

Secondly is Anita.   She is feeding off your negative energy in order to form an even more grandiose version of herself.  Since she feels that there is no way to be "good,"  she has permission to be "bad."   That is childish, that is not healthy.  She is responsible for her actions and her reactions.  But so are we.  We have no reason to beleive that Anita has

Sorry, went to edit a spelling error and hit send.

We have no reason to belive that Anita is grounded enough to deal with all of this. In fact, we have evidence that she is not.  If that is the case, is it fair to be nit-picky?   Shouldn't the extreme criticism wait for extreme action?

That was my object to the negative attention paid to her attending the IIG test.  She didn't do anything harmful. 

Derek from the IIG posted the following on the JREF forum today:

Hello.

There have been a couple of comments on the web regarding Anita Ikonen's appearance at the Regen Traynor Preliminary Demonstration that I just wanted to clear up.

First, she was NOT an invited guest. I was the Chair of the IIG Meeting that day and I got a call from Steve Muscarella that she had called him to say that she would be stopping by the meeting.

The IIG has a "No Applicants" policy to our meetings. This means that anyone who plans on ever applying for the Paranormal Challenge is not allowed to sit in on our meetings. I made this very clear to Anita and she agreed to this. This means that she has forfeited any chance of ever being tested by the IIG for any ability at any time.

Next, although the IIG allows people to attend two regular meetings for free before becoming a paid member no one can be part of an investigation or attend a Paranormal Challenge event without being a paid member. Anita was resistant to this, but she paid the membership dues (well, technically she got someone else to pay for her membership dues, but that's a different story entirely) and was then allowed to attend the Regen Traynor Preliminary Demonstration.

I hope that this clears up some of the confusion regarding her appearance.

Thanks.

-Derek

Anita replied with some of her usual self serving gobbledygook, but Derek's points are pretty clear.

Posted By Daylightstar on 23 Feb 2010 01:22 PM
That's a pretty sleezy way of wiggling into such a meeting.

Makes me wonder, how did she enter the USA?

Anita has said in the past that she is here on a student visa. I have no doubt that it is a valid visa, since she wouldn't have been allowed to enroll at UNCC without a visa, and she wouldn't have been allowed  to obtain a visa without being enrolled at UNCC (or any college).

I think it is safe to assume that Derek's account is significantly more reliable than Anita's. She bends the truth like Uri Geller bends spoons.